THE High Court in Lautoka has struck out a civil action brought by a Sigatoka retiree against the Fiji Police Force after the court found the claims failed to follow mandatory legal requirements.
Peter Geoffrey Rae of Korotogo backroad, Sigatoka filed a writ of summons on February 28, 2024, seeking an injunction for restitution and $3,000,000 in damages.
His claims included allegations that the police failed to investigate the truth behind a complaint that led to his arrest and breached his constitutional rights to be produced in court within 48 hours.
Mr Rae further alleged breaches of his right to be presumed innocent and his right to humane treatment while in custody.
The plaintiff also sought damages for health and mental trauma, the loss of his marriage, loss of access to his children, and loss of business resulting from the defendant’s actions.
Additionally, the claim included a request for restitution for property valued at $14,030.00, which included 30 kilograms of dried yaqona, surfboards, a Nikon camera, and various household items.
Representing the Fiji Police Force, Ms J Raman filed an application to strike out the writ, arguing that it failed to provide a concise statement of the nature of the claim, lacked a legal basis, and did not provide the facts the plaintiff was relying on.
While Mr Rae argued that striking out the matter would be contrary to the interests of justice and asked for an opportunity to amend his statement of claim, the court noted that he had never actually filed a statement of claim in the matter.
In a ruling delivered on February 6, Master Preetika Prasad said the Plaintiff’s indorsement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
Master Prasad found that the pleading was devoid of material facts and necessary particulars to explain how the police breached the plaintiff’s rights or how those breaches led to the claimed losses. The court also highlighted that instead of seeking an extension of time to file the proper documents, Mr Rae had filed an application for default judgment, which the master determined was an abuse of court process.
The writ of summons was struck out with no order as to costs.
